Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Tyger]

No, I was saying I wanted to hang around ...but I think closing this thread and having a category and either a part 2 or several topic threads would work.

I'll ask.

 

[smcder]

From Constance - she is having technical issues and asked me to post:

1. I agree with you, Steve, that the thread should continue since it has been such fertile ground and there is so much more that can be developed concerning the philosophical and spiritual issues raised in it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Also from Constance:



2. I understand Michaelangelo’s (sp?) impatience; if he had approached the thread with specific questions rather than hostile confrontation, some very interesting discussions might have developed. They still can. Perhaps he can return with less attitude and heat and more focused light on the issues we are concerned with. I think his problem is one of frustration with the ‘intellectualism’ of the way major issues in our long thread are being discussed at present: we have reached a point of extreme abstraction here, satisfied to speak too often in generalities and to accept single terms as explanations of what we understand (hope to understand) as the nature of reality – particularly the term ‘monism’. As you point out, Steve, monism is “a philosophical position with a history,” and we have not yet begun to explore this history. The history is important if we are to understand the origins of monism in monotheism in an ancient mileau in which polytheism was its primary contender in ontological (and then onto-theological) thought. I came across an interesting page on this subject, linked below, in which the roots of the concept of monism are explored both in terms of pagan cultures and ideas and early classical ontology as expressed in Plato and Aristotle. The discussion following the essay on that page is worth reading as background for an appreciation of how much of what we think today has been thought before with subtlety and insight into the core relations and problematics of mind and world. I hope someone else here will find this material interesting and relevant and that with it we might begin to explore these problematics as historically evolved into our own time. We have more to overcome than the dualism of Descartes and its continuing confusion of the issues involved in what we encounter phenomenally and phenomenologically in the physical world, upon the basis of which we take a variety of perspectives with more and less reason.

One of the problems with Monism (and, yes, there are more than one!) | Aedicula Antinoi: A Small Shrine of Antinous


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

Also from Constance: I understand Michaelangel’s impatience; if he had approached the thread with specific questions rather than hostile confrontation, some very interesting discussions might have developed. They still can. Perhaps he can return with less attitude and heat and more focused light on the issues we are concerned with.

I agree.

Constance: I think his problem is one of frustration with the ‘intellectualism’ of the way major issues in our long thread are being discussed at present: we have reached a point of extreme abstraction here, satisfied to speak too often in generalities and to accept single terms as explanations of what we understand (hope to understand) as the nature of reality – particularly the term ‘monism’.

Yes, and there is room for experiential speculation, too, without the fancy words - but one has to read the text at least that is presented in the posts - else it doesn't work.

I think the following illustrates what a wealth of knowledge resides here in both Constance and Steve - they can parlez-vouz on many levels - and still talk about alien abductions and flying saucers - how cool is that!

Constance: As you point out, Steve, monism is “a philosophical position with a history,” and we have not yet begun to explore this history. The history is important if we are to understand the origins of monism in monotheism in an ancient milieu in which polytheism was its primary contender in ontological (and then onto-theological) thought. I came across an interesting page on this subject, linked below, in which the roots of the concept of monism are explored both in terms of pagan cultures and ideas and early classical ontology as expressed in Plato and Aristotle. The discussion following the essay on that page is worth reading as background for an appreciation of how much of what we think today has been thought before with subtlety and insight into the core relations and problematics of mind and world. I hope someone else here will find this material interesting and relevant and that with it we might begin to explore these problematics as historically evolved into our own time. We have more to overcome than the dualism of Descartes and its continuing confusion of the issues involved in what we encounter phenomenally and phenomenologically in the physical world, upon the basis of which we take a variety of perspectives with more and less reason.

One of the problems with Monism (and, yes, there are more than one!) | Aedicula Antinoi: A Small Shrine of Antinous

 

[Soupie]

One of the problems with Monism (and, yes, there are more than one!) | Aedicula Antinoi: A Small Shrine of Antinous

Since I'm the declared Substance Monist and the one bringing the concept to the table, I'll respond to the article from my viewpoint.

The crux of the article seems to be disagreement with people using monism to support their presupposition of there being one "capital G" God. This is an issue I identified above in my last couple posts, and I agree that neither monotheism nor pantheism necessarily follow from Monism. That is, a belief in any type of god/God does not necessarily follow from a belief in Substance Monism and/or Property Dualism.

Also, as several of you believe in the existence of a spiritual realm/aspect of reality, Dualism likely appeals to you, so you reject Monism on those grounds.

I agree that Monism is mostly a metaphysical position; however, there does seem to be "emperical" evidence that only physical matter exists, which could be a scientific (physical) argument for (physical) Monism.

@smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance. While it's not the appeal for me, one benefit of Quantum Space Theory - the idea that reality is a superfluid - is that forces - as they are understood in current (meta)physics - apparently no longer exist. I've tried to find an article that explains that in depth but no luck so far.

Also, while the history of Monism is important, I'm not aware of it. My gravitation to the concept was based on my own private logic.

Chalmers makes a wonderful (non slam dunk) case that physical matter/energy can't account for qualia.

However, rather than invoke Substance Dualism, he goes with Property Dualism. I go with that too.

The logical reason being that if there were dual substances, how could they interact with one another? I encounted this issue years ago when first pondering mysticism and the supernatural.

If two substances were literally and completely different, they couldn't interact. Thus, since we (largely physical objects) can interact with the supernatural/paranormal and qualia, at the most fundental level, these two "essences" must be related ergo monism, albeit with property dualism.

Finally, to be clear, I agree that there may be two "realms:" a physical and spiritual/mental: however, the apparent fact that these realms appear to interact, even weakly, means - to me - that the substances of which these realms are constituted must be related in some fundamental way; so again, ergo monism.

And regarding the idea of the spiritual realm and constitution: I'm all ears if someone can explain how differentiated objects such as qualia, minds, gods, demons, etc. can exist and yet not be constituted/made of something.

 

[smcder]

Since I'm the declared Substance Monist and the one bring the concept to the table, I'll respond to the article from my viewpoint.

1) The crux of the article seems to be disagreement with people using monism to support their presupposition of there wing one "capital G" God. This is an issue I identified above in my last couple posts, and I agree that neither monotheism nor pantheism necessarily follow from Monism.

Also, as several of you believe in the existence of a spiritual realm/aspect of reality, dualism likely appeals to you, so you reject Substance Monism on those grounds.

I agree that monism is mostly a metaphysical position; however, there does seem to e "emperical" evidence that only physical matter exists, which could be a scientific argument for physical monism.

@smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance. While it's not the appeal for me, one benefit of Quantum Space Theory - the idea that reality is a superfluid - is that forces no longer exist. I've tried to find an article that explains that in depth but no luck so far.

Also, while the history of monism is important, I'm not aware of it. My gravitation to the concept was based on my own private logic.

Chalmers makes a wonderful (non slam dunk) case that physical matter/energy can't account for qualia.

However, rather than invoke dualism, he goes with Property Dualism. I go with that too.

The logical reason being that if there were two dual substances, how could they interact with one another? I encounted this issue years ago when first ponderin mystesism and the supernatural.

If two substances were completely different, they couldn't interact. Thus, since we can interact with the supernatural/paranormal and qualia, at the most fundental level, these two "essences" must be related ergo monism, albeit with property dualism.

Finally, I agree that there may be two "realms:" a physical and spiritual: however, since these realms appear to interact, even weakly, means - to me - that the substances of which these realms are constituted must be related in some fundamental way; so again, ergo monism.

And regarding the idea of the spiritual realm and constitution: I'm all ears if someone can explain how differentiators things such as qualia, minds, gods, demons, etc. can exist and yet not be constituted/made of something.

@"smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance."

I'm not recognizing that idea ... Can you give me a quote?


"Also, while the history of monism is important, I'm not aware of it. My gravitation to the concept was based on my own private logic."

- that's not good! ;-)

"Doomed to repeat" etc etcetera



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Since I'm the declared Substance Monist and the one bring the concept to the table, I'll respond to the article from my viewpoint.

1) The crux of the article seems to be disagreement with people using monism to support their presupposition of there wing one "capital G" God. This is an issue I identified above in my last couple posts, and I agree that neither monotheism nor pantheism necessarily follow from Monism.

Also, as several of you believe in the existence of a spiritual realm/aspect of reality, dualism likely appeals to you, so you reject Substance Monism on those grounds.

I agree that monism is mostly a metaphysical position; however, there does seem to e "emperical" evidence that only physical matter exists, which could be a scientific argument for physical monism.

@smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance. While it's not the appeal for me, one benefit of Quantum Space Theory - the idea that reality is a superfluid - is that forces no longer exist. I've tried to find an article that explains that in depth but no luck so far.

Also, while the history of monism is important, I'm not aware of it. My gravitation to the concept was based on my own private logic.

Chalmers makes a wonderful (non slam dunk) case that physical matter/energy can't account for qualia.

However, rather than invoke dualism, he goes with Property Dualism. I go with that too.

The logical reason being that if there were two dual substances, how could they interact with one another? I encounted this issue years ago when first ponderin mystesism and the supernatural.

If two substances were completely different, they couldn't interact. Thus, since we can interact with the supernatural/paranormal and qualia, at the most fundental level, these two "essences" must be related ergo monism, albeit with property dualism.

Finally, I agree that there may be two "realms:" a physical and spiritual: however, since these realms appear to interact, even weakly, means - to me - that the substances of which these realms are constituted must be related in some fundamental way; so again, ergo monism.

And regarding the idea of the spiritual realm and constitution: I'm all ears if someone can explain how differentiators things such as qualia, minds, gods, demons, etc. can exist and yet not be constituted/made of something.

If something exists we have to say it's made of something ... I can't think of a case where our language would allow us to speak otherwise.

What are thoughts made of? Even if you are an eliminative materialist you can't avoid talking about the "illusion" as being made of something ...

But ... It's important not to assume the world ends where language does.

On the other hand, I still have trouble with the idea of "non physical material" ... As opposed to extending the definition of physical.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Soupie]

Another concept/philosophy which is near my own is Neutral Monism. I'm not quite sure of how this view differs from Property Dualism or Dual Aspect Theory though. If one cares to read about this, here's a link to SEP:

Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For those of you philosophically opposed to Substance Monism, could you explain how a spiritual being and/or qualia might interact with a physical object/being such as a human if they are constituted/composed of a dual substance? I sincerely don't understand how they could interact at all if that were the case.

Also, related, why would you believe that to be the case? I've explained clearly why I think Substance Monism is the case.

 

[Soupie]

@"smcder has mentioned "forces" many times as representing a dual substance."

I'm not recognizing that idea ... Can you give me a quote?


"Also, while the history of monism is important, I'm not aware of it. My gravitation to the concept was based on my own private logic."

- that's not good! ;-)

"Doomed to repeat" etc etcetera

Ok, I'll find a post ASAP.

I'll gladly change my view if I have logical and/or experiential reasons to do so. As it is, I see no reason to believe in Substance Dualism.

 

[Soupie]

If something exists we have to say it's made of something ... I can't think of a case where our language would allow us to speak otherwise.

And why should it? What reason - logical or experiential - do you have for supposing something might exist and yet not exist? Other than creative imagination, I'm not sure why this possibility should be strongly considered.

What are thoughts made of?Even if you are an eliminative materialist you can't avoid talking about the "illusion" as being made of something ...

Thats the question, no?

Are they made of nothing? If so, how would they exist? Do they exist? It seems they do ergo they are something, ergo they are made of something. If there is error in this logic, I'm all ears.

I'm fine with the concept that thoughts and qualia are not constituted of matter/energy, but since they exist as opposed to not existing, they must exist, ergo they must be made of something (and not nothing, i.e. non-existent).

Do you have alternative concepts of exist and not-exist that don't involve the concepts of something and nothing? Again, all ears.

Do you believe each thought and qualia is it's own unique substance? How might they interact with one another then? Share your logic please!

If you merely want one to consider the possibility, that's fine - but providing a logic for the idea/concept is appreciated too.

But ... It's important not to assume the world ends where language does.

Ha! But let's be very, very careful not to assume the world continues where language doesn't.

On the other hand, I still have trouble with the idea of "non physical material" ... As opposed to extending the definition of physical.

But that's essentially what Substance Monism and Property Dualism does.

We don't know what physical material is! It may be a vibrating unit of information.

Non-physical material may be a vibrating unit of information vibrating in reverse or out-of-sync.

I wonder if you have a narrow view of what physical material is? It's a rather mystical thing/phenomenon in and of itself, really.

I do wonder if Substance Dualists underestimate the wonder of the physical universe.

 

[Soupie]

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning.

There may be "spiritual" beings that exist and interact with us, but 1) they gotta be made of something and if they can interact with us, it's gotta be something related to the stuff we're made of, 2) while what these beings have in mind for us may be Ultimate to us, it wouldn't be Ultimate to them. Meaning, if we have a backstory, they too must have a backstory. That is, if we having UM via these entities, then from their POV it is subjective meaning.

It's the old argument: if God created us, who created Him?

If there is a spiritual realm that created us in the physical realm, who created them in the spiritual realm?

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM.

 

[Tyger]

Ha! But let's be very, very careful not to assume the world continues where language doesn't.

But we know 'the world continues' where language cannot go - metaphor demonstrates that, as does higher abstract thinking. I would say most of mathematical thinking is struggling to grasp the metaphors/ideas that reach beyond language.

 

[Soupie]

Is math not language? Indeed, C. Langan's theory is that reality = language.

 

[Tyger]

Is math not language? Indeed, C. Langan's theory is that reality = language.

But math has to catch up, though in some instances it out strides our knowledge.

But what of metaphor? What of realities that can only be conveyed as metaphors using the physical world.

In language explain to me the feeling of annoyance.

 

[Soupie]

In language explain to me the feeling of annoyance.

If by this question, you mean to capture the Hard Problem, I've said that I agree that qualia are non-physical. Qualia thus cannot be explained in objective language. This isn't a limit of language, but a constraint of subjectivity. Qualia appear to be subjective. However, we do have language to capture these subjective objects. Thus, we all know what you mean by "annoyance."

However, that does not mean that the subjective experience/feeling of annoyance doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it isn't constituted of something.

@Tyger, could you please explain how dual substances might interact with one another, thus refuting Monism? Or, could you at least explain why the spiritual realm you describe must be constituted of a dual substance?

Could you explain how you know it is a dual substance? Could you explain how differentiated, complex objects such as gods, demons, and angels might exist but not be constituted of something such as a substance? And if you insist this is the case - though our language can't capture this case - can you explain why this must the case? Or is it a fact that can only be known through experience?

 

[smcder]

Another concept/philosophy which is near my own is Neutral Monism. I'm not quite sure of how this view differs from Property Dualism or Dual Aspect Theory though. If one cares to read about this, here's a link to SEP:

Neutral Monism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

For those of you philosophically opposed to Substance Monism, could you explain how a spiritual being and/or qualia might interact with a physical object/being such as a human if they are constituted/composed of a dual substance? I sincerely don't understand how they could interact at all if that were the case.

Also, related, why would you believe that to be the case? I've explained clearly why I think Substance Monism is the case.

How does one substance interact with itself in different ways? There are problems with causality in both models. I'm only committed to questioning both models.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Ok, I'll find a post ASAP.

I'll gladly change my view if I have logical and/or experiential reasons to do so. As it is, I see no reason to believe in Substance Dualism.

Neither model fully explains everything that seems to be the case. Are there are other options available?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

And why should it? What reason - logical or experiential - do you have for supposing something might exist and yet not exist? Other than creative imagination, I'm not sure why this possibility should be strongly considered.

Thats the question, no?

Are they made of nothing? If so, how would they exist? Do they exist? It seems they do ergo they are something, ergo they are made of something. If there is error in this logic, I'm all ears.

I'm fine with the concept that thoughts and qualia are not constituted of matter/energy, but since they exist as opposed to not existing, they must exist, ergo they must be made of something (and not nothing, i.e. non-existent).

Do you have alternative concepts of exist and not-exist that don't involve the concepts of something and nothing? Again, all ears.

Do you believe each thought and qualia is it's own unique substance? How might they interact with one another then? Share your logic please!

If you merely want one to consider the possibility, that's fine - but providing a logic for the idea/concept is appreciated too.

Ha! But let's be very, very careful not to assume the world continues where language doesn't.

But that's essentially what Substance Monism and Property Dualism does.

We don't know what physical material is! It may be a vibrating unit of information.

Non-physical material may be a vibrating unit of information vibrating in reverse or out-of-sync.

I wonder if you have a narrow view of what physical material is? It's a rather mystical thing/phenomenon in and of itself, really.

I do wonder if Substance Dualists underestimate the wonder of the physical universe.

I'm not a substance dualist and I don't have a way to quantify the amount of wonder I have at the physical universe so it may be that I underestimate ... But from what I've seen so far ... I'm very impressed.

"What reason - logical or experiential - do you have for supposing something might exist and yet not exist"

I don't say that something might exist and yet not exist.

I was thinking about awareness ... There doesn't seem to be a unit of awareness ... You might be aware of more things than I but do we say you have more awareness itself? Can I cut your awareness in half or just the field of your awareness? Is it extensible? Has any measurable property? Don't confuse measuring the substrate for awareness itself. Then do we say it's made if something?

The physical / mon physical descriptionss you give could just be placed under one heading like matter and antimatter - if you don't want to call them both physical - them just go up a level and coin a term that covers both kinds of .., physical



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning.

There may be "spiritual" beings that exist and interact with us, but 1) they gotta be made of something and if they can interact with us, it's gotta be something related to the stuff we're made of, 2) while what these beings have in mind for us may be Ultimate to us, it wouldn't be Ultimate to them. Meaning, if we have a backstory, they too must have a backstory. That is, if we having UM via these entities, then from their POV it is subjective meaning.

It's the old argument: if God created us, who created Him?

If there is a spiritual realm that created us in the physical realm, who created them in the spiritual realm?

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM.

"I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning."

I don't recognize myself in those statements. Have trouble with deterministic but most people do these days - at least in the Newtonian sense I think you mean it.

I've always had a hard time imagining a crowded universe and never struggled too much with the thought we might be alone .., In fact, neat that we might have all of reality to ourselves .,, although I don't think that's likely the case. But then I don't like crowds so it may just be what I want to be the case.

Here is a thought (not a statement of personal belief)

I had an image of a ceaselessly changing universe the other day - a sense that it might have all been going on and might all continue to go on, ceaseless change being the only ultimate quality - all endings being finite - this may be what is behind the rhetoric of Buddhism and its how I reconcile Nirvana with Nietzsche's eternal recurrence which is an infinite act of courage.

Nirvana isn't annihilation or denial of life, it's stepping outside the flow of change by not clinging to any experience - to me that is an ultimate form of affirmation. Maybe that is like your UM?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

I think there is an elephant in the room too! But I'll tell you what I think the elephant is. Capital M-Meaning, or Ultimate Meaning (UM). (By Ultimate Meaning I mean, heh, meaning that is not subjective but objective.)

Physical Substance Monists tend to believe in a deterministic universe devoid of Ultimate Meaning.

I sense that the three of you - @smcder, @Constance, @Tyger - strongly disagree with that concept. You all three seem to believe that there is Ultimate Meaning, particularly for humans.

This UM seems to be related to a supposed non-physical, spiritual realm. A realm filled with souls, God, gods, demons, and angels. These beings are interested in us. We - our souls, spirits, and/or minds - may even "belong" to this realm. A realm where there is Ultimate Meaning.

My own view is that while such a realm might exist, it won't have Ultimate Meaning, just lower case m-meaning.

There may be "spiritual" beings that exist and interact with us, but 1) they gotta be made of something and if they can interact with us, it's gotta be something related to the stuff we're made of, 2) while what these beings have in mind for us may be Ultimate to us, it wouldn't be Ultimate to them. Meaning, if we have a backstory, they too must have a backstory. That is, if we having UM via these entities, then from their POV it is subjective meaning.

It's the old argument: if God created us, who created Him?

If there is a spiritual realm that created us in the physical realm, who created them in the spiritual realm?

Finally, while I'm not as big a proponent of Langan as it may seem, haha, he is apparently a Substance Monist who very strongly believes in a reality suffused with Ultimate Meaning. Thus Substance Monism does not preclude there being UM.

The questions you raise above .., I think you'd enjoy and benefit from a history of philosophy and theology - get a good grounding in the range of answers offered to those questions. I wish I had more than the smattering that I do have.

Do you speak a second language? A foreign language?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk